Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess the issue is that if someone wanted to use MarshalAlloc.free > > as a finalizer they would not be able to do so. Since we don't > > guarantee that MarshalAlloc.malloc is "stdio.h malloc", they couldn't > > portably cons up a compatible &free. > > Yes, you're trying to recover something that was lost with the change > to newForeignPtr. Formerly one could allocate something with malloc > or mallocArray and add a finalizer that called free. Now you can't, > except in the canned special case of mallocForeignPtr. But there's > nothing similar for arrays, as required e.g. in Data.Array.Storable.
I think SimonM and Ross have a point here. There isn't really anything gained from linking `MarshalAlloc.malloc' up with a C version of `MarshalAlloc.free'. So, I think we should leave it as it is. Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
